MS PATNI ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Court
Uttarakhand High Court


2026:UHC:3722-DB


HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY

th
14 May, 2026


Writ Petition (M/B) 344 of 2026


MS Patni Engineering and Construction
------Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others

-----Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-

Ms. Abhijay Negi and Mr. Ayush Pokhriyal, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. B.P.S.Mer, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT: ( per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J. )
The present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner seeking quashing of Clause 11.1 Sub-Clause
(A) (ix) of Section-II-Instructions to the Bidders (ITB) of
the Tender bearing number 2026_pwd_ 93700_1 dated
nd
30.04.2026 issued by the Public Works Department, 2
Circle, Nainital, and for issuance of a writ of mandamus
directing respondent no.2 to issue a fresh tender notice
after deleting the said arbitrary condition and after
disclosing the necessary information in respect of Bill of
Quantities (BOQ) in terms of Clause 4.7.3 of the
Procurement Rules, 2025.
1


2026:UHC:3722-DB
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the
instant petition are that respondent no.2 issued an
advertisement on 23.03.2026 inviting bids through e-
tendering process for ‘Hill side cutting and muck disposal
work (II Phase Stage 1) and Construction of wall and
cross drainage work (II Phase Stage-II) in Kathgodam to
Ranibag Section of National Highway No. 87 (109) under
State Sector (Hon’ble Chief Minster’s Announcement No.
550/2019), in Bhimtal Assembly Constituency of Nainital
District”.
3. The petitioner is also stated to have submitted
its bid along with other persons in pursuance of the said
advertisement. While the tender process was underway,
the instant writ petition came to be filed, assailing Clause
11.1 of the ITB, which is as follows:
“11 Document Constituting the Bid.
11.1 The Bid should be uploaded in the E-
procurement Portal under a two Bid document
system comprising the following documents.
ix. Bidder shall submit the certificate issued by the
Executive Engineer of concerning division, that, “the
bidder has visited the site with departmental
Engineers”, along with Tender cost, Bid security
declaration, Registration etc. Without certificate the
Bid will be treated non-responsive for opening of
Technical Bid.”
4. The case of the petitioner is that the
2


2026:UHC:3722-DB
condition requiring the intending bidder to visit the site
with Departmental Engineer and submit a certificate
issued by the Executive Engineer of the concerned
division to the effect that the bidder had visited the site
is illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that the said
condition was wholly unnecessary and it has not served
any logical purpose, on the other hand, it imposes a
wholly arbitrary restriction upon the intending bidders.
5. The second contention of the petitioner is
that under Rule 4.7.3 of the Uttarakhand Procurement
Rules 2025, the respondents were required to specify
the rates of individual items of work listed in the Bill of
Quantities, whereas, while issuing the tender, the
respondents have only specified the total estimated
cost. The contention is that the intending bidders would
not know the estimated value of individual items, thus
seriously prejudicing the bidders.
6. Learned counsel for the State has obtained
written instructions from the Executive Engineer,
Temporary Division, PWD, Bhowali, dated 12.05.2026
and the same has been placed on record. A copy of the
same has also been provided to the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
7. The stand taken therein is that on basis of
objections of bidders to Clause 11.1 Sub-Clause (A)
3


2026:UHC:3722-DB
(ix), it has been deleted by issuing a corrigendum dated
04.05.2026, A copy of the said corrigendum dated
04.05.2026 has also been enclosed along with the
written instructions.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly
concedes that the first contention, therefore, does not
survive for consideration.
9. In respect of the second contention, learned
State Counsel has placed reliance on Rule 4.2.3 of the
Procurement Rules. According to him, the work-in-
question fell under the scope of Rule 4.2.3 where only
an estimated lump sum amount is required to be
disclosed. It is submitted that the estimated value of
the contract is above 10 lacs, therefore, Rule 4.2.2,
which relates to Item Contract was not applicable.
10. We have gone through the Rule 4.2.2 and
4.2.3. The contract-in-question, as noted above, was
for estimated value of Rs. 546.83 lacs, far more than
Rs. 10 lacs.
11. The work under the contract involves hillside
cutting, its disposal work and construction of wall and
cross drainage work in Kathgodam to Ranikhet section
of National Highway No. 87. Learned State Counsel has
emphasized that the work under the contract involves
4


2026:UHC:3722-DB
designing, procurement and execution and, therefore, it
would fall under Rule 4.2.3. It is urged that Rule 4.2.2
applies only to work of emergent nature, which could
not be delayed and thereunder, the time frame for
concluding the tender process is also much less as
compared to the detailed tendering process to be
followed under Rule 4.2.3 in higher value lump sum
contracts.
12. We find considerable force in the contention
of learned State Counsel. Concededly, the contract is of
estimated value of much more than 10 lacs, therefore
Rule 4.2.2 would not apply.
13. Petitioner has also submitted his bid in
pursuance of the NIT and we find no good ground to
interfere in the tender process.
14. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
15. The interim order stands vacated.


(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.)




(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated: 14.05.2026
Kaushal




5